Coelogyne sp.

You are not being clear. Are you saying that de Vogel is "manipulatve" or is this another broad attack against all boptanists that they are "manipulative."

All I said was that you photograph matches the photograph in Orchid Monographs. So why don't you shut the #$@% up until you get a copy and stop insulting botanists.

 

never did write anything against botanist, only again your judging on this, becuse it is your interpretation not anybody else! Dr Vogel didn't write in his book that picture from this topic is swaniana did he? You make me laugh...
I don't need copy to have voice and proof I am right not YOU. First painting showed links before was from 1894, this one is just another proof you are wrong not Anybody else I am writing about you! in this topic so stop using your imagination and start read what is written, and take a bit margin that I am not English speaking born person, and your language is just childish...

 

I am delighted that you can say with such authority that your photograph is not the same as a photograph in Orchid Monographs that you admit have never seen.

 

What a pleasant addition to the discourse.
/// NOT

 

With all due respect, I think you're both wrong on this ID. Every picture I've been able to hunt up of the two suggested species clearly shows them both with a keel or whatever down the center line of the lip, which seems conspicuously absent in the pictures of the plant Adam posted. There are some other minor differences but that's the biggest I see.

Of course, as has already been pointed out it's a little silly for me to play armchair taxonomist based solely on pictures from the internet (which I guess we're all kind of doing since none of us but the OP are in the room with the plant in question ). I don't have access to any of the printed sources you all refer to and I also have no real life experience with any of these Coelogynes. It's quite possible all the pictures I looked at are mis-ID'd; I probably couldn't tell. So if anyone wants to post some actual descriptive information to support or debunk a particular ID of this plant I'd be very interested to read it... Thanks!

--Nat

 

I repeat again -all I said was that his photographs match those in the definitive monograph of the group and that is the basis for my saying it is swaniana. I just don't understand such certainty on his part that I/de Vogel are categorically wrong without seeing this reference. All this jackass had to say is "Thank you but I see differences and will have to see that reference." It is insulting people like him that cause most botanists to shun horticulturists.

 

How does the keel arrangement on the lip match up? I'll need to rely on your report since I can't check out the monograph myself (found a pdf online but $35 for 24-hour access is more than I want to spend). Can you discuss the verbal description of swaniana in de Vogel's monograph (photos alone aren't sufficient to publish or modify an ID of a species, no?)? Adam's plant looks pretty different from all the photos labeled swaniana I've found online, how does the monograph photo compare to these (ie, are all the online ones mislabeled?)? Thanks for indulging my curiosity!

--Nat

 

Too much work - I am not correcting the internet. I got into this to help someone with one undetermined plant. The illustration in de Vogel shows 3 keels from the base of the lip to the base of the midlobe - just like the type description. The midlobe has 9 keels of variable length and thickness. There are 8 flowers. The color photograph is of a different plant and is similar.

 

to finish those all nonsence about it being swaniana, real specialist and botanist of Coelogyne opinion:

"I discussed your photographs with my colleague Ed de Vogel and we both think your plant is Coelogyne testacea (variably coloured sepals and petals) and definitely not Coelogyne swaniana (differently shaped epichile and keels, sepals and petals white/brown only and never yellowish green)." written to me Dr Barbara Gravendeel

Hope this is the only important info in this whole topic

Thank you

 

Good one Piotr.

Thumbs up (or in this case applause)

 

I gladly accept their determination. However, you might want to take a look at the picture of testacea in Orchid Monographs which has several glaring differences with your plant. First. the lobes of the lip are erect and do not curve inward around the column. Second, the petals are sharply acute. Third, the lip midlobe and keel are stark white except for a slight brown margin.

So testacea is highly variable but swaniana couldn't possibly be variable in anyway. Whatever.

 

Whatever is right!